On WTHR they just said that Jackson got out of court in time to go to practice, but Larry Bird said he didn't want him to come to practice.

What the hell is that?

I'm not much for reading into the actions of team officials, but this does sound extremely strange.

Any thoughts?

**Edit** Also they had the camera on Jackson when he got word he wasn't to go to practice. He didn't seem happy at all, and said he wanted to know why he couldn't be there.

-- Steve --

Unclebuck

10-12-2006, 05:10 PM

Here is what I posted on another thread

Not sure what thread to put this in. I was just watching WTHR, Channel 13 news and Jackson wanted to practice but Bird told Jackson attorney No.

Jax atty told Jax and Channel 13 showed Jax's reaction and he wasn't too happy. 13 just happended to be there. No comments from Bird, but Jackson's atty told Stephen that Bird did not want him at practice today. We then see Rick saying he doesn't know when Jax will be at practice, maybe tomorrow

Interesting

Combination of two things: I would imagine TPTB are consulting with their lawyers to see what the Pacers options are.
Also Bird probably wants Jax to regroup a little first

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 05:10 PM

Because we don't want distractions?

:innocent:

CableKC

10-12-2006, 05:13 PM

Here is what I posted on another thread

Not sure what thread to put this in. I was just watching WTHR, Channel 13 news and Jackson wanted to practice but Bird told him no.

Jax atty told Jax and Channel 13 showed Jax's reaction and he wasn't too happy. 13 just happended to be there. No comments from Bird, but Jackson's atty told Stephen that Bird did not want him at practice today. We then see Rick saying he doesn't know when Jax will be at practice, maybe tomorrow

Interesting

Maybe its the way that you worded it.......but do you mean that Bird told SJax directly that he didn't want him in practice today?

or

Did Bird tell SJax's attorney that he didn't want him in practice and then the attorney told SJax?

Unclebuck

10-12-2006, 05:15 PM

Maybe its the way that you worded it.......but do you mean that Bird told SJax directly that he didn't want him in practice today?

or

Did Bird tell SJax's attorney that he didn't want him in practice and then the attorney told SJax?

Sorry, I assume Bird told Jax attorney, because the atty told Jackson and that is what channel 13 showed. Maybe it is up on WTHR.com

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 05:16 PM

Because we don't want distractions?

:innocent:

Or because the judge ordered Jackson not to have contact with anyone involved in the incident?

I'm looking forward to the split practice thing.

Rick, "OK - Jamal, Marquis, Snap - it's time for Stevie to practice. Why dontcha all grab me a triple latte? There's this place in Kokomo that makes them just the way I like 'em. And stay away from the nudie bars while you're gone."

And yes - I'm mocking your pain. ;)

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:18 PM

Yeah, Jax didn't know why he couldn't be at practice. If he'd have gotten the call I'd imagine he'd have already asked at least.

I think Rick saying he didn't know when he'd be back was weird too.

I really don't know what to make of this, but I'm certainly seeing signs he may not be around long, one way or the other.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 05:18 PM

Or because the judge ordered Jackson not to have contact with anyone involved in the incident?

Yep. And it's odd that Jackson responded that way. Maybe he didn't listen to the judge, or he was expecting to get time by himself at Conseco today.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:20 PM

Or because the judge ordered Jackson not to have contact with anyone involved in the incident?;)

They specifically said that Bird said it, not the judge.

Also Jackson was in court, I'd imagine he'd have heard if the judge had ordered it.

Not to mention his lawyer was standing there as Jax is saying "I want to know why I can't practice", and I think the lawyer listed close to the judge, and his lawyer would have set him straight on why if it was that simple.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 05:21 PM

They specifically said that Bird said it, not the judge.

Also Jackson was in court, I'd imagine he'd have heard if the judge had ordered it.

The judge did order it. That's what DK and I are saying.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:23 PM

So you guys really think the judge called Bird, and Bird called Jax's lawyer. Yet, the judge didn't tell Jax, or his laywer while they were there in court today?

There is no common sense in this line of thought.

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 05:23 PM

They specifically said that Bird said it, not the judge.

Also Jackson was in court, I'd imagine he'd have heard if the judge had ordered it.

Not to mention his lawyer was standing there as Jax is saying "I want to know why I can't practice", and I think the lawyer listed close to the judge, and his lawyer would have set him straight on why if it was that simple.

:rolleyes:

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 05:25 PM

OK - the judge ordered Jackson to not have contact with principle witnesses.

As far as I know, none of the other players were principle witnesses to the actual fight.

I'd leave them out of the trial nomatter which side I was representing.

ABADays

10-12-2006, 05:26 PM

There could be a lot of reasons. Like Bird does want Jackson to regroup a little, getting a clarification on the judge's orders, weighing team and league options, not wanting disruptions as the team has to make cut decisions. I don't think they are all that ominous.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 05:28 PM

"Judge Patricia Gifford told Jackson not to contact witnesses or others involved in the case. Gifford entered a not guilty plea for the Pacer."-IndyStar

LA, It seems to me like any of the Pacers involved would be key witnesses. Snap saw enough to be a key witness for sure. He was the one who threw Jackson's gun back into the car after he fired it off. And the other players saw the fight as well (maybe not Daniels..I'm not sure), though nobody is claiming to have seen Jackson firing his gun.

Like ABA says, it might not be an ominous thing. Just trying to abide by the law, though it still doesn't explain Jackson's response. ::shrugs::

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 05:30 PM

OK - the judge ordered Jackson to not have contact with principle witnesses.

As far as I know, none of the other players were principle witnesses to the actual fight.

I'd leave them out of the trial nomatter which side I was representing.

Yeesh. The quote from the article was:
Judge Patricia Gifford told Jackson not to contact witnesses or others involved in the case.

Considering all three other players gave statements I'd say they're involved.

However, if this is based on my post I sure wish people would learn what the word, "mock" means along with the use of the ;) icon.

IMO Bird and Walsh haven't figured out what to do about all this yet and would just as soon SJ stays away until they do. And for this one sentence, I'm not mocking or using emoticons.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:31 PM

That does nothing to explain why he, nor his laywer would know anything about this, yet Bird would. If it was the case, they'd have known walking out of court, without Bird's phone call.

The judge has Bird's celly number. They're tight like that, yo.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 05:32 PM

I'm sitting here in California and I know. Larry and Donnie are Jackson's bosses, so they definitely know.

If you read Donnie's comments from yesterday, you'd know that he's being informed in the same way we are.

Trader Joe

10-12-2006, 05:32 PM

I'd probably say that there are about 10,000 casual Pacers fans willing to walk away from them if Jack every wears a Pacers jersey again. Right now it is pure business IMO.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:38 PM

I'm sitting here in California and I know. Larry and Donnie are Jackson's bosses, so they definitely know.

If you read Donnie's comments from yesterday, you'd know that he's being informed in the same way we are.

Yet, Jackson, and the person he pays thousands of dollars to know, don't?

Again, as I said this theory makes no sense with what was said by WTHR.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 05:39 PM

IMO Bird and Walsh haven't figured out what to do about all this yet and would just as soon SJ stays away until they do.

:ding:

This is a fairly safe assumption.

Now, unless any of us has read the court order word for word, we don't know what limitations are there. And neither do the Pacers administration. Further, even if there are limitations and those do impact Jackson's role on the team, Jackson's attorney and even the Pacers's attorneys can file motions for clarification, amendments, exceptions, etc etc etc.

"Don't contact people associated with the case" is usually phrased "do not discuss the case with anyone involved." And USUALLY that means principal witnesses of fact, as officially declared by the prosecutor and the defense team heading in to trial. There's a lot of wiggle room everywhere.

Tom White

10-12-2006, 05:40 PM

So you guys really think the judge called Bird, and Bird called Jax's lawyer. Yet, the judge didn't tell Jax, or his laywer while they were there in court today?

There is no common sense in this line of thought.

There were two separate items.

1.The judge told Jackson not to have contact with any others involved in the case.

2. Bird told Jackson's attorney that he did not want Jackson to attend today's practice.

Clearer now?

There IS a possibility that TPTB were informed of what the judge had ordered and, pending a clarification by the court, did not want to risk Jackson violating that order by having him at practice with Daniels and Tinsley.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 05:45 PM

There were two separate items.

1.The judge told Jackson not to have contact with any others involved in the case.

2. Bird told Jackson's attorney that he did not want Jackson to attend today's practice.

Clearer now?

Oh my god, some of you don't listen.

I'm sure at 12:15 as Stephen Jackson walked out and was told that he couldn't practice by BIRD, that Bird was more aware of what happened in court than Jacksons own laywer who's job it was to be there and represent him.

If that was the case, Jax's attorney would have been calling Bird to tell HIM he can't come to practice. Not the other way around. Not to mention his own laywer was standing right next to him as he didn't understand why he couldn't practice, but his lawyer is too stupid to tell him "because of the judges restrictions" if that were the case? Silly.

I give up, if you guys can't see it, you're blind as hell.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 05:46 PM

Yet, Jackson, and the person he pays thousands of dollars to know, don't?

Again, as I said this theory makes no sense with what was said by WTHR.

They probably were just thinking in terms of the Willford Brothers.

The judge told SJax to avoid contact with any material witnesses, and that presumably includes anyone that was in the parking lot at that time. Hence, three of his teammates.

I think he's going to find out later tonight he's suspended indefinitely with pay, although the pay will probably go into an escrow account pending the outcome of the case. No inside source, just a hunch.

Robertmto

10-12-2006, 05:51 PM

The term "blind ignorance" is going to be thrown around alot here in the near future.

Jax can;t practice because he's not allowed to be in contact with Snap, Marquis and Tins.

And Dino and Fingers.

:devil:

Destined4Greatness

10-12-2006, 05:51 PM

There are at least half a dozen reasons for this. None of which involve trading Jackson, really from what I gather. If a guy wants to practice and you want to trade him, YOU LET HIM. You don't want to add in Out of Shape when pitching him to other teams.

Tom White

10-12-2006, 05:55 PM

Oh my god, some of you don't listen.

I give up, if you guys can't see it, you're blind as hell.

It would seem to me that the only person on this board that is not listening, or is blind is you. Go back and read what the judge directly told Jackson and his attorney. NO CONTACT.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 06:00 PM

I understand what they're trying to say. Jackson had just gotten out of court and Bird had already made a call to his attorney saying he didn't want him at practice. But I don't think that matters.

Donnie Walsh is an attorney, and after all the offcourt problems we've had I'm sure TPTB were aware that the judge would order no contact. But maybe I'm wrong.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:00 PM

It would seem to me that the only person on this board that is not listening, or is blind is you. Go back and read what the judge directly told Jackson and his attorney. NO CONTACT.

Again they reiterated on a follow up "The Pacers told him to skip practice"

They did not say, "based on the judges restrictions, he was unable to practice."

I don't know if you guys saw it or not, but unless WTHR screwed up some facts, common sense rules out the judge keeping him out of practice. Not one of you can explain how any of thie things I'm saying that are out of place to come to your conclusion, makes sense, because they don't. All you can do is cut and paste what the judge said.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 06:01 PM

No, common sense says no contact with other players involved. Other players involved are at practice. Do the math.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:04 PM

No, common sense says no contact with other players involved. Other players involved are at practice. Do the math.

If you ignore everything else seen, with tunnel vision ... yes that's the only conclusion plausible.

I'm really done this time. This is doing nothing but going in circles. Until you have something new, peace! :laugh:

Robertmto

10-12-2006, 06:04 PM

Again they reiterated on a follow up "The Pacers told him to skip practice"

They did not say, "based on the judges restrictions, he was unable to practice."

WTHR is :sunshine:

Look at what the judge DIRECTLY SAID TO JACKSON AND HIS ATTORNEY!

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:06 PM

WTHR is :sunshine:

Look at what the judge DIRECTLY SAID TO JACKSON AND HIS ATTORNEY!

:laugh:

Already answered this.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:07 PM

It would seem to me that the only person on this board that is not listening, or is blind is you. Go back and read what the judge directly told Jackson and his attorney. NO CONTACT.

NO - the ARTICLE said that, not the judge. And even if you want to take the article as word-for-word, it it did not say "NO CONTACT" - it said "not to contact". There's a big difference.

If you are riding an elevator up to the courtroom and a witness get on, you would be in violation of "no contact" but you would not be in violation of the order "not to contact."

Okay, Okay, I'm Busted! I should have typed NO CONTACTING.
Is that better?

Good Grief! The way we are all getting worked up over this, none of us better have any caffeine for about a week.

...and I was probably a bit harsh in declaring our fellow poster the only non-listening and blind person on this board. Sorry about that.

microwave_oven

10-12-2006, 06:17 PM

Rick, "OK - Jamal, Marquis, Snap - it's time for Stevie to practice. Why dontcha all grab me a triple latte? There's this place in Kokomo that makes them just the way I like 'em. And stay away from the nudie bars while you're gone."

Kokomo is the last place you would want to send someone if you want them to avoid nudie bars. I went to school and worked there for 2 years...strip clubs on every side of town. :laugh:

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:20 PM

Okay, Okay, I'm Busted! I should have typed NO CONTACTING.
Is that better?

Good Grief! The way we are all getting worked up over this, none of us better have any caffeine for about a week.

...and I was probably a bit harsh in declaring our fellow poster the only non-listening and blind person on this board. Sorry about that.

I don't take any of this personal. It's no biggie.

All I'm asking is for someone to explain to me any way humanly possible why Jackson's lawyer isn't smart enough to know this, if that was the case. Jax was whining, and I literally watched him say "Why can't I practice!?", with his laywer standing RIGHT THERE.

I just can't see anyway possible that his lawyer wouldn't just tell him so, if that was the case. If anyone else can, please fill me in.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:39 PM

I don't take any of this personal. It's no biggie.

All I'm asking is for someone to explain to me any way humanly possible why Jackson's lawyer isn't smart enough to know this, if that was the case. Jax was whining, and I literally watched him say "Why can't I practice!?", with his laywer standing RIGHT THERE.

I just can't see anyway possible that his lawyer wouldn't just tell him so, if that was the case. If anyone else can, please fill me in.

Because the court order and Bird's decision might be completely unrelated?

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 06:41 PM

Presumably, the lawyer is smart enough. "Material witnesses" would be a defined term somewhere in a court docket. But had they had time to digest all of it? The Pacers were probably informed of the exact language of just that particular snippet because its the only portion that would matter to them.

One of my staff guys is going to try to look for the document. Hell, if we're going to be here late working on other cases, we might as well have some fun with our research. Gives the Chicago fans a bit more of an excuse to poke fun of the Pacers.

tadscout

10-12-2006, 06:42 PM

Because the court order and Bird's decision might be completely unrelated?

:ding:

:brilliant

Key word is MIGHT... We just don't know the full details... AGAIN... and we're jumping to conclusions AGAIN... right know I see it 50-50... who knows right now...

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 06:42 PM

Because the court order and Bird's decision might be completely unrelated?

Something in there caused them to change their mind, want to take the time to claify something, etc.

Lord Helmet

10-12-2006, 06:43 PM

Because we don't want distractions?

:innocent:
Yep. That's the logical answer.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:47 PM

Keep in mind Jay - microwave_oven told us last night that there was a huge meeting planned for today among the top brass and advisors.

The meeting may have already decided something long before the judge's ruling became a consideration.

Just saying.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:49 PM

By the way, I think the timing of Jackson finding out just as he's in front of the camera is horrible. I mean, that's just disgusting. He's still a player on the team and needs to be informed of team decisions in a more dignified manner.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:51 PM

Because the court order and Bird's decision might be completely unrelated?

That's what I'm trying to say, but everyone who was replying for a while was acting like I'm stupid or something. Hah

I don't have a problem with saying I'm stupid, but at least be able to explain how my logic is wrong. And I'm sorry, I just don't buy that the Pacers knew more about the courthouse conversation than the lawyer himself.

And how can a high profile laywer need "time to digest" anything? He's done this thousands of times. He should be aware of any, and all restrictions regarding his ability to go to work, or do his job with someone there who was involved.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 06:55 PM

My hunch is the document is at least 100 pages long with page after page of defined terms. It *was* written by lawyers. They don't make for easy reading.

Pacersfan46

10-12-2006, 06:55 PM

Ah, and it was 12:15, he had just gotten out of the courtroom/jail, whatever.

I know when I've been to court, they didn't go calling my work, and informing them of anything. I can't believe they'd go calling the Pacers to fill them in. That's more abnormal than the event itself.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:56 PM

Good point, Pacersfan46.

But remember one thing: he's a TRIAL lawyer.

UH OH - holy crap I just thought of something. - The lawyer will be representing Jackson both in the Criminal case and - wait for it - the lawsuit against the Pacers should they move to void his contract or suspend him.

This embarrassing TV moment may have been created by the lawyer himself.

I think I forgot to take my meds.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 06:56 PM

Keep in mind Jay - microwave_oven told us last night that there was a huge meeting planned for today among the top brass and advisors.

And that his contact is only involved in advising about trades.

Who's going to trade for him?

I don't think there's any connection there.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 06:57 PM

Ah, and it was 12:15, he had just gotten out of the courtroom/jail, whatever.

I know when I've been to court, they didn't go calling my work, and informing them of anything. I can't believe they'd go calling the Pacers to fill them in. That's more abnormal than the event itself.

You better believe there was a Pacers attorney there observing. I would consider it extremely negligent if there wasn't one.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 06:57 PM

Ah, and it was 12:15, he had just gotten out of the courtroom/jail, whatever.

I know when I've been to court, they didn't go calling my work, and informing them of anything. I can't believe they'd go calling the Pacers to fill them in. That's more abnormal than the event itself.

I'm sure some employee of PS&E was in the courtroom, relaying the important information to HQ.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 07:00 PM

Good point, Pacersfan46.

But remember one thing: he's a TRIAL lawyer.

UH OH - holy crap I just thought of something. - The lawyer will be representing Jackson both in the Criminal case and - wait for it - the lawsuit against the Pacers should they move to void his contract or suspend him.

This embarrassing TV moment may have been created by the lawyer himself.

I think I forgot to take my meds.

There's no lawsuit. It will be arbitration in front of what's-his-face. And the NBPA will defend him.

Los Angeles

10-12-2006, 07:03 PM

There's no lawsuit. It will be arbitration in front of what's-his-face. And the NBPA will defend him.

I must have been right about my meds then.

:laugh:

Frank Slade

10-12-2006, 07:17 PM

I did hear on my way from work that if healthy Carslisle indicated Jax might still play Saturday. And to think I have tickets :eyebrow:

tadscout

10-12-2006, 07:22 PM

I did hear on my way from work that if healthy Carslisle indicated Jax might still play Saturday. And to think I have tickets :eyebrow:

I bet he's in the dark, or wasn't informed yet of the situation when he made that statement at practice... since Bird made his decision so close to practice time... but that's just a guess/ hunch...

speakout4

10-12-2006, 07:28 PM

"Judge Patricia Gifford told Jackson not to contact witnesses or others involved in the case. Gifford entered a not guilty plea for the Pacer."-IndyStar

LA, It seems to me like any of the Pacers involved would be key witnesses. Snap saw enough to be a key witness for sure. He was the one who threw Jackson's gun back into the car after he fired it off. And the other players saw the fight as well (maybe not Daniels..I'm not sure), though nobody is claiming to have seen Jackson firing his gun.

Like ABA says, it might not be an ominous thing. Just trying to abide by the law, though it still doesn't explain Jackson's response. ::shrugs::

So if the trial doesn't occur for 6 months then Jackson sits out the entire season? I doubt that very much. Bird has enough on his plate without worrying whether Jackson is violating the judge's orders and it is up to Jackson's counsel (who is a well known trail lawyer) to decide what his client can or can't do. So instead of Bird saying he shouldn't come to practice it would have been his lawyer who would have told Bird his client couldn't come to practice. Pacerfan 46 is dead right.

McKeyFan

10-12-2006, 07:45 PM

It would seem to me that the only person on this board that is not listening, or is blind is you. Go back and read what the judge directly told Jackson and his attorney. NO CONTACT.

No contact? Good thing Harrison's not involved.

;)

Jermaniac

10-12-2006, 07:52 PM

Anyone got the video when Bird says that to Jack?

McKeyFan

10-12-2006, 07:54 PM

By the way, I think the timing of Jackson finding out just as he's in front of the camera is horrible. I mean, that's just disgusting. He's still a player on the team and needs to be informed of team decisions in a more dignified manner.

Completely agree.

Unfortunately, this seems to be in character with the actions of Bird and Walsh the last couple of years. They can't confront, it seems.

I've written several posts about this, but apparently Larry the killer assassin player does not have strong, courageous instincts when it comes to handling human beings in real life.

Isaac

10-12-2006, 07:57 PM

No contact? Good thing Harrison's not involved.

;)

Probably what would happen is that Harrison would not see Jack, talk to him on the phone or even have the thought of Jack cross his mind, but he'll somehow get arrested for it and put on death row.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 07:58 PM

So if the trial doesn't occur for 6 months then Jackson sits out the entire season? I doubt that very much.

I doubt it too, considering the trial is set for January. I'd doubt it anyways, but I think there needs to be some clarification to the 'no contact' statement.

ABADays

10-12-2006, 07:58 PM

They aren't any worse than any other front office. There are stories all the time about someone learning something through the press. Doesn't make it right - it just happens.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 08:00 PM

:ding:

You and LA share the same bell?

Yeah, I probably jumped to a conclusion or two. We might find the reason he was held out, but maybe not.

imawhat

10-12-2006, 08:00 PM

If you ignore everything else seen, with tunnel vision ... yes that's the only conclusion plausible.

I'm really done this time. This is doing nothing but going in circles. Until you have something new, peace! :laugh:

And click.

BillS

10-12-2006, 08:20 PM

They aren't any worse than any other front office. There are stories all the time about someone learning something through the press. Doesn't make it right - it just happens.

How did this turn into Jax learned it through the press?

Bird called Jax's lawyer to have him tell Jax not to come to practice. The lawyer told Jax while the cameras were there.

What was Bird supposed to do? Wait for him to <i>get</i> to practice? Bet there'd have been no cameras there.

In this situation there would have been no way to arrange to tell Jax without cameras being there.

ABADays

10-12-2006, 08:30 PM

How did this turn into Jax learned it through the press?

Bird called Jax's lawyer to have him tell Jax not to come to practice. The lawyer told Jax while the cameras were there.

What was Bird supposed to do? Wait for him to get to practice? Bet there'd have been no cameras there.

In this situation there would have been no way to arrange to tell Jax without cameras being there.

My bad. The point I was trying to make, although not clearly, was people hear things through other avenues than the horse's mouth so to speak. I didn't mean to single out the press.

Shade

10-12-2006, 08:47 PM

I think this is a bad move by Bird. All it will do is cause further friction and potential chemistry problems down the road. Unless there's a damn good reason for this decision.

Doug

10-12-2006, 09:00 PM

And yes - I'm mocking your pain. ;)

You mocked me once, never do it again -- I died that day!

aceace

10-12-2006, 09:48 PM

I don't think it was a bad move. It sends a message to the other players. Especially since we have so many young players. I bet all the players had at one point or another an opportunity to leave before the fight and didn't. When your in the spotlight you have got to walk away from trouble.

JayRedd

10-12-2006, 09:50 PM

I think the timing of Jackson finding out just as he's in front of the camera is horrible. I mean, that's just disgusting. He's still a player on the team and needs to be informed of team decisions in a more dignified manner.

Unless he's not

aero

10-12-2006, 09:58 PM

Because we don't want distractions?

:innocent:

indeed.

Jackson needs to just be away from the arena right now, all the media would just bother him as well as the rest of the team. If i were TPTB id adress the media and tell them that the players will NOT comment at all about the jackson incident what so ever.

They are doing the right think about this imo.

BlueNGold

10-12-2006, 10:02 PM

Unless he's not

Don't tease. Will a felony conviction really void his contract? Does anyone know this for a fact?

vapacersfan

10-12-2006, 10:07 PM

Don't tease. Will a felony conviction really void his contract? Does anyone know this for a fact?

You are getting WAY ahead of yourself (even if that were to happen it would be months away) but yes, a felony conviction would be terms to void his contract

BlueNGold

10-12-2006, 10:09 PM

You are getting WAY ahead of yourself (even if that were to happen it would be months away) but yes, a felony conviction would be terms to void his contract

Just a question. I am not making any assumptions here. I am hoping we can void his contract though...and I bet TPTB are hoping the same.

JayRedd

10-12-2006, 10:11 PM

Don't tease. Will a felony conviction really void his contract? Does anyone know this for a fact?

I don't know.

But, thus far, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on this forum that thinks the Simons won't really have that big of a problem with eating $7 million a year for the next four.

I'm not sure why it's considered such a ridiculous possibility.

Yes, $26 million is a lot of money. But these guys are pretty rich. And from their perspective as business men (because that's what they are), they probably feel that have the potential to lose much more than that in ticket sales, luxury boxes, concessions, TV money, merchandise, etc, etc.

Jay@Section12

10-12-2006, 10:24 PM

Don't tease. Will a felony conviction really void his contract? Does anyone know this for a fact?

Nobody can say for certain, because it will end up in arbitration. However it *appears* to be enough (the morals clause is written loosely, but teams are not inclined to push the envelope on every little immoral situation.)

A felony conviction may convince the NBPA to put up minimal resistance (especially if the player in incarcerated) because of the bad publicity it might get.

An arrest with really bad evidence (not saying this situation qualifies) might be enough to win an arbitration, and it might not. But will the team want to spend the money on legal fees if the player might still have some trade value? No way, so you just won't see a team challenge in that circumstance unless conviction is a near certainty (and thus, no trade value.)

Keep in mind, voiding this contract won't put the Pacers under the salary cap, they won't get an exception for it, there's no compensatory draft pick. Its a last resort that teams will avoid if the player has *any* market value left.

I, as everyone knows, wanted the Pacers to void Artest's contract after he quit on the team. And again a few days later after the brawl. They didn't, and through a fortunate series of events we now have Al Harrington. It would've been nice to avoid the turmoil of last season, and it would've been nice if the franchise would've begun the climb toward respecibility a bit sooner, but its also nice to have Al back.

JayRedd

10-12-2006, 10:31 PM

I, as everyone knows, wanted the Pacers to void Artest's contract after he quit on the team. And again a few days later after the brawl. They didn't, and through a fortunate series of events we now have Al Harrington. It would've been nice to avoid the turmoil of last season, and it would've been nice if the franchise would've begun the climb toward respecibility a bit sooner, but its also nice to have Al back.

Artest brought something truly unique to the table talent-wise. And while his attitude was fairly dispicable, it was still in the TO realm of "Ron Ron being Ron Ron." It wasn't about him being nutty and a "headcase" not felonies, guns and strippers (although that would make a good album title.)

I could have sworn specific language in the CBA that stated if said player was convicted of a felony, said players contract could be voided.

Now here is one for you (or anyone else who knows)

If any team voids a players contract, what happens?

I realize the team no longer has to pay said player, but does that money still count against the cap? What does the team get, besides the obvious relief of not paying the players and avoiding further bad PR, if anything?

JayRedd

10-12-2006, 10:34 PM

Now here is one for you (or anyone else who knows)

If any team voids a players contract, what happens?

I realize the team no longer has to pay said player, but does that money still count against the cap? What does the team get, besides the obvious relief of not paying the players and avoiding further bad PR, if anything?

Again...I don't know the answer to this.

But I'd be shocked if this same question hasn't been asked by the Simons behind closed doors.

BlueNGold

10-12-2006, 10:53 PM

I don't have time to read everything. Sorry if this has already been posted. Here is a response from Donnie regarding this...

Q. If there is a conviction, would you have the option of terminating his contract?
A. Yeah, I think that's in the contract.

microwave_oven

10-12-2006, 11:03 PM

I found out today that Larry Bird told Steven Jackson over the summer that he was on a zero tolerance policy. Bird made it very clear that if Jackson didn't get his head on straight, then he would be out of here. In light of the recent events....

Larry Bird issued a meeting today between TPTB and the advisers. During the over 2 hour meeting, they weighed all their options. Things the Pacers will be looking for at first are any possible trades of SJax, then if their hands are tied there, they will look to initiate some sort of buyout.

However they will have to let the legal process take its place, because IF Jackson IS convicted of a felony, then his contract can be voided by the team. To my understanding, the team is not responsible for paying the remaining contract nor does the salary count against the cap. Committing a felony is a violation of the player's contract and is subject to be terminated.

The decision to hold Jackson out of practice was made by all the advisers and Top Brass, it was not just Larry Bird's call. (Although he did have the most say in it.) Whether Jackson will be held out of more practices/games is up to Bird. At this time however, Jackson's immediate return is considered "unlikely."

After the events that took place today, I strongly believe that Jackson will be gone and may even have to sit out similar to Artest's situation.

gilpdawg

10-12-2006, 11:05 PM

"Judge Patricia Gifford told Jackson not to contact witnesses or others involved in the case. Gifford entered a not guilty plea for the Pacer."-IndyStar

LA, It seems to me like any of the Pacers involved would be key witnesses. Snap saw enough to be a key witness for sure. He was the one who threw Jackson's gun back into the car after he fired it off. And the other players saw the fight as well (maybe not Daniels..I'm not sure), though nobody is claiming to have seen Jackson firing his gun.

Like ABA says, it might not be an ominous thing. Just trying to abide by the law, though it still doesn't explain Jackson's response. ::shrugs::

If it was you or I, no matter what the judge said, we'd still be expected to go to work. Therefore there shouldn't be any reason why he shouldn't be able to practice, unless TPTB just don't want him there. He just shouldn't talk about the case while there. Hypothetically, of course.

And I believe as well that Jax will be "Artest-ed" if only for the PR of it. He'll still TECHNICALLY be on the team, but out of sight, out of mind. You don't want to be at Conseco opening night if Jax is on the team. We might have the "Brawl" part II. But it would be the fans running onto the court, not players into the stands. (I'm just kidding about that last part. Kind of.)

vapacersfan

10-12-2006, 11:15 PM

I found out today that Larry Bird told Steven Jackson over the summer that he was on a zero tolerance policy. Bird made it very clear that if Jackson didn't get his head on straight, then he would be out of here. In light of the recent events....

Larry Bird issued a meeting today between TPTB and the advisers. During the over 2 hour meeting, they weighed all their options. Things the Pacers will be looking for at first are any possible trades of SJax, then if their hands are tied there, they will look to initiate some sort of buyout.

However they will have to let the legal process take its place, because IF Jackson IS convicted of a felony, then his contract can be voided by the team. To my understanding, the team is not responsible for paying the remaining contract nor does the salary count against the cap. Committing a felony is a violation of the player's contract and is subject to be terminated.

The decision to hold Jackson out of practice was made by all the advisers and Top Brass, it was not just Larry Bird's call. (Although he did have the most say in it.) Whether Jackson will be held out of more practices/games is up to Bird. At this time however, Jackson's immediate return is considered "unlikely."

After the events that took place today, I strongly believe that Jackson will be gone and may even have to sit out similar to Artest's situation.

haha you fool, you fell for one of the classic blunders, the most well known is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this...never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line uh hahahahaha uh hahahahaha uh ha ha ha

tadscout

10-12-2006, 11:45 PM

haha you fool, you fell for one of the classic blunders, the most well known is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this...never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line uh hahahahaha uh hahahahaha uh ha ha ha

HUH? :confused:

Jermaniac

10-12-2006, 11:47 PM

Yeah that last posted confused the **** out of Jermaniac.

microwave_oven

10-12-2006, 11:51 PM

HUH? :confused:

Yeah that last posted confused the **** out of Jermaniac.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU&mode=related&search=

you poor deprived children...

MagicRat

10-12-2006, 11:52 PM

HUH? :confused:

I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 11:53 PM

Yeah that last posted confused the **** out of Jermaniac.

Don't worry about it - we were about to take this thread into the Entertainment Forum.

But being as most Pacer fans are in The Pit of Despair ...

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 11:55 PM

I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?

I was sure you were going to say three instead of six and then we'd have really been off - might've taken us right into the Fireswamp.

microwave_oven

10-12-2006, 11:56 PM

THIS MUST STOP!!!

DisplacedKnick

10-12-2006, 11:57 PM

Yeah that last posted confused the **** out of Jermaniac.

He's trying to confuse me too - it won't work.

MagicRat

10-12-2006, 11:57 PM

I was sure you were going to say three instead of six and then we'd have really been off - might've taken us right into the Fireswamp.

Had it right there in front of me and whiffed........:duh:

Jermaniac

10-12-2006, 11:58 PM

Yall need some women in yall lives.

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 12:00 AM

Had it right there in front of me and whiffed........:duh:

Just as well - I gotta work in the morning - and I'm not sure taking this into the Rioswamp is the thing to do just yet.

I believe we could probably keep that going for some time.

microwave_oven

10-13-2006, 12:09 AM

Just as well - I gotta work in the morning - and I'm not sure taking this into the Rioswamp is the thing to do just yet.

I believe we could probably keep that going for some time.

I know how you feel...I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Gilda to frame for it, I'm swamped. :shrug:

SycamoreKen

10-13-2006, 12:25 AM

I was actually going to post something on the topic that I had left behind until those last few posts. You guys made me forget what i was going to say.

MagicRat

10-13-2006, 12:28 AM

Just as well - I gotta work in the morning - and I'm not sure taking this into the Rioswamp is the thing to do just yet.

What are the three terrors of the RioSwamp?.........

JayRedd

10-13-2006, 12:29 AM

What are the three terrors of the RioSwamp?.........

A MagicROUS?

MagicRat

10-13-2006, 12:50 AM

One, the 9mm spurt - no problem. There's a popping sound preceding each; we can avoid that. Two, the marijuana bag, which you were clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too.

What about the C.F.D.F.'s?

Convicted Felons Dino and Fingers? I don't think they exist..........

Peck

10-13-2006, 01:38 AM

You mocked me once, never do it again -- I died that day!

First is Paula Abdul's "straight up" & now this?

Henceforth Doug shall only be called by his new name "Buttercup".:-p

Raskolnikov

10-13-2006, 02:24 AM

Or because the judge ordered Jackson not to have contact with anyone involved in the incident?

I'm looking forward to the split practice thing.

Rick, "OK - Jamal, Marquis, Snap - it's time for Stevie to practice. Why dontcha all grab me a triple latte? There's this place in Kokomo that makes them just the way I like 'em. And stay away from the nudie bars while you're gone."
That was funny.

Will Galen

10-13-2006, 05:07 AM

Hmmm . . . you guys have been reading to many Twes posts.

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 07:05 AM

One, the 9mm spurt - no problem. There's a popping sound preceding each; we can avoid that. Two, the marijuana bag, which you were clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too.

What about the C.F.D.F.'s?

Convicted Felons Dino and Fingers? I don't think they exist..........

:laugh:

Good thing I gotta get some work done.

Doug

10-13-2006, 10:49 AM

One, the 9mm spurt - no problem. There's a popping sound preceding each; we can avoid that. Two, the marijuana bag, which you were clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too.

What about the C.F.D.F.'s?

Convicted Felons Dino and Fingers? I don't think they exist..........

Well done!

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 11:00 AM

I keep waiting for;

"I've hired you to help me start a rumble. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition."

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 11:08 AM

Yall need some women in yall lives.

Yeah - but which one? Let's work through the decision-making process:

"I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the stripper dancing in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the stripper dancing in front of me."

MagicRat

10-13-2006, 12:21 PM

Not remotely! Because strippers come from strip clubs, as everyone knows. And strip clubs are entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the stripper in front of you.

imawhat

10-13-2006, 12:41 PM

I found out today that Larry Bird told Steven Jackson over the summer that he was on a zero tolerance policy. Bird made it very clear that if Jackson didn't get his head on straight, then he would be out of here.

This is why I have been seething since last Friday.

Maybe I need to be more patient, but there seem to be no plans of action, and there's still a possibility Stephen could play tomorrow night. I just don't think our management will hold true to their word.

And if the Pacers didn't want a distraction, they would suspend him indefinitely for conduct detrimental to the team. Instead, there's a lot of uncertainty hanging over the team.

microwave_oven

10-13-2006, 12:48 PM

Not remotely! Because strippers come from strip clubs, as everyone knows. And strip clubs are entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the stripper in front of you.

You're just stalling!

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 01:03 PM

Not remotely! Because strippers come from strip clubs, as everyone knows. And strip clubs are entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the stripper in front of you.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Doug

10-13-2006, 01:10 PM

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Wait till I get going!

Where was I?

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 01:12 PM

Wait till I get going!

Where was I?

Strip Clubs.

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 01:14 PM

There's another thread just begging to be hijacked:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25110&page=2

Jackson himself says that he wears blood colors and keeps a red bandana on him.

Why are you wearing that bandana? Were you burned by acid or something?

Arcadian

10-13-2006, 01:55 PM

Stop the quoting. I mean it.

Putnam

10-13-2006, 02:07 PM

Stop the quoting. I mean it.

Anybody want a peanut?

MagicRat

10-13-2006, 02:11 PM

Anybody want a peanut?

You have a great gift for rhyme......

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 02:21 PM

You have a great gift for rhyme......

Enough of That!

Unclebuck

10-13-2006, 03:11 PM

Did Jax practice today (Friday)

indygeezer

10-13-2006, 03:25 PM

If I knew WTF you were talking about I'd prolly be LMFAO righ now.

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 03:47 PM

If I knew WTF you were talking about I'd prolly be LMFAO righ now.

Much as I hate to, I suppose we should share ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/

For one-liners, only MPTHG can rival it.

JayRedd

10-13-2006, 03:48 PM

For one-liners, only MPTHG can rival it.

Agree to disagree

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 04:00 PM

Agree to disagree

Uh-oh - we aren't going to bring up Caddy Shack or Billy Madison are we?

Leisure Suit Larry

10-13-2006, 04:08 PM

Much as I hate to, I suppose we should share ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/

For one-liners, only MPTHG can rival it.

LOL, the Princess Bride? No!

JayRedd

10-13-2006, 05:10 PM

Uh-oh - we aren't going to bring up Caddy Shack or Billy Madison are we?

<------------- "It's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good."

NuffSaid

10-13-2006, 05:43 PM

Or because the judge ordered Jackson not to have contact with anyone involved in the incident?

I'm looking forward to the split practice thing.
Okay, I can accept "no distrations, no contact w/witnesses, and regrouping" as viable reasons for him not to practice w/the team at this time. But you can't keep this type of player segregation up for much longer before it starts to create additional problems for the player and the team to have to deal with. I think the best thing they can do for the player and the team at this point is to get him back out on the court. If you continue w/this "cloak and dagger" in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" you're creating controversy.

If you're going to keep him away from practice or a pre-season game or two just to ensure he injuries (are) heal(ed), say so., If you're going to keep him out because you feel he needs to get his head on straight before practicing/playing w/the team, again just say so. If you're keeping him out of practice/games because you think he'll be a distration for the team, be upfront about it and just say so especially when the media is right there to run wild w/the story.

But don't add more fuel to a fire that's already burning white hot!

DisplacedKnick

10-13-2006, 05:46 PM

<------------- "It's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good."

Ugh - Will Ferrell was OK until he started being in the same movie in different settings. I didn't even see Ricky Bobby - figured they took Anchorman and set the movie at a race track.

rexnom

10-13-2006, 05:49 PM

Agree to disagree
Whale's vagina.

Sorry it took me five posts by other people to say that.

Btw, they've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.